The U.S. House is currently debating the Stop Online Piracy Act (H.R. 3261), better known as SOPA. As mentioned in our previous analysis, SOPA has the potential to create devastating harm to internet businesses, as it allows sites to be taken down if any user posts links to infringing content.

For example, if a site's user policy explicitly forbid posting links to copyrighted material and one rogue user posted such content, the entire business could be effectively killed for however many weeks or days it took to remove the offending links and pass a complaint through the gears of bureaucracy. The solution appears to be sort of like chopping your leg off to fight an ingrown toenail.

I. All Onboard the Congressional Pirates Train

Now a particularly ironic fact has come to light -- it appears that IP addresses belonging to the offices of members of Congress have been downloading content illegally via BitTorrent.

TorrentFreakused Hurricane Electric's handy list of assigned IP blocks (found here) to track down which IP addresses belong to the offices of members of Congress. And lo and behold, when those addresses were compared to results on YouHaveDownloaded, a torrent tracking site, they yielded over 800 hits.

Now to put this in context YouHaveDownloaded tracks only a tiny portion of torrent traffic, so it appears that Congress -- even as they look to punish lesser mortals for file sharing -- are themselves gleefully committing a "smash and grab" as Vice President Joe Biden (D) once put it.

Much of the pirated materials appeared to be adult self-help or education books such as "Crucial Conversations- Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High" and "How to Answer Hard Interview Questions And Everything Else You Need to Know to Get the Job You Want".

But other pirated works appeared to be purely stolen for pleasure. For example one individual within the halls of Congress downloaded a season of Sons of Anarchy, a TV show on News Corp.'s (NWS) FX channel. Another download appeared to be more "adult" in nature -- "Gangland Cream Pie 21" (we're guessing that's not an educational baking special).

Some Members of Congress or staffers appear to like the cream pie. No, not this kind of cream pie. [Image Source: Food Network]

II. Editorial/Analysis: Should we be Surprised that Politicians are Hypocrites?

Is it surprising that the office of Congress are pirating even as they plot to chop the legs off of online business, further crippling the struggling U.S. economy, and raise taxes to further punitive punishments for filesharing that are already grossly disproportionate with offline offenses? Is it surprising that federal politicians or bureaucrats are pirating even as they plan to imprison Americans for streaming sports events, injecting even more Americans into the crowded penal system at a time when America imprisons more of its citizens than any nation in the world?

If Americans wants unbiased political representation -- human beings who truly wish the best for their well being -- why would they allow special interests to pay federal politicians' way into office? Clearly you're the boss of who pays you, and when it comes to politicians, their boss isn't the American people.

Is intellectual property protection important? Of course. These government pirates are just as much in the wrong as the members of the public, as they're ultimately stealing work, denying hard working software engineers, actors, musicians, etc. funds.

But at the end of the day that SOPA and its propents aren't engaging in some lofty moral stand, they're just looking to smack down the little guy with punitive punishments, even as the nation's economy lurches and as they or their aids merrily pirate away.

'File sharing' - as commonly understood (meaning making and distributing a copy of a copyrighted work without permission) is currently illegal, and has been for some time. Eric believes it shouldn't be illegal, based on the fact that people have been ignoring the law for years and the fact that the people he associates with find the law onerous and unreasonable. Eric's beliefs don't change Fritz's facts, nor do Fritz's facts change Eric's beliefs.

Eric's argument, however, is fairly short on logic - it's more pathetic, in the sense of pathos versus logos.

So would you advocate the removal of all traffic laws because people routinely speed, or don't come to a full stop at stop signs? An ineffective law may be better than no law - you must show that, in addition to being ignored by a large class of people, the law is actually detrimental in some way. Please do so.

quote: 'File sharing' - as commonly understood (meaning making and distributing a copy of a copyrighted work without permission) is currently illegal

Why do we need "permission" to use something we freaking BOUGHT with our money? If file sharers made a profit, I would agree with you. But we don't need permission to share things we legally purchased. Do you also think used books are illegal? Why not? After all by reselling your books you are depriving the publisher of sales because people would otherwise have to buy a new copy of the book. Correct? By your logic this is WORST than file sharing because the reseller of the book is actually making a profit off someone else's IP. Tell me I'm wrong here. What's the difference?

quote: So would you advocate the removal of all traffic laws because people routinely speed, or don't come to a full stop at stop signs?

Oh yay, another terrible file sharing analogy. How in the hell is adjusting IP law to reflect technological and societal changes akin to removing ALL traffic laws? Get out of here with that crap. Next you'll be throwing a murder analogy or rape one at me.

You're essentially calling billions of people criminals for doing something that, if the entertainment industry didn't spend billions in lobbying bribes, wouldn't even be viewed as petty theft.

I give up on trying to convince "file sharers" that they are depriving publishers of sales, even though if you carry the argument to the extreme that only one person bought the item and everyone else "shared" it, the entertainment industry would obviously grid to a halt. Some people only see what they want to see, not matter what arguments are made to the contrary.

I will address the argument that you can do whatever you want because you have purchased the item. There is such a thing as the EULA, which prevents duplication and distribution of the item. You may feel that this is unreasonable, but it is tacitly agreed to when you purchase the item. Just because you buy something, it does not give you unlimited rights to do whatever you want with it. If you purchase a copyrighted item, you are bound by the EULA and existing copyright laws whether you think they are fair or not.

quote: I give up on trying to convince "file sharers" that they are depriving publishers of sales, even though if you carry the argument to the extreme that only one person bought the item and everyone else "shared" it, the entertainment industry would obviously grid to a halt.

Making extreme stupid arguments that could NEVER happen might be a reason you're failing to "convince" others. Also pushing the weak position that "something is a law, so it's carved in stone for all time and you're a meanie bad person if you don't agree" doesn't work on people over 12 years old. Just a tip.

quote: There is such a thing as the EULA

EULA's have a history of not holding up well in courts. They are NOT legally binding in all cases, fyi. Simply put, an EULA is not a legal authority. I've seen EULA's that claim if you buy the product you cannot sue the company. That's patently bullcrap and unconstitutional, and doesn't stand in court. By law you cannot make someone agree to give away a Constitutional right simply by buying something.

The terms "Licensing agreement" are in the EULA. However, again, I soundly reject the notion that we're paying money simply for the "licensed right" to enjoy something. You're trying to convince me that when I purchase something, I don't have ownership of it. How you and millions of others have traded in your integrity and morals for a corporate boondoggle of legalese and profiteering is beyond me. When those "laws" you so revere are literally bought and paid for and practically written by the same people who have the most to gain, I call that corruption.

Feel free to return when you have something that can be used to show that copyright ownership is illegal.

Until the copyright laws are struck down, illegal filesharing will remain illegal.

The courts have spoken repeatedly over several centuries. Some of the Fair Use exemptions are the result of court orders.

At the end of the day, the only right that is granted by outright purchase of a copyrighted work is personal use. No distribution rights (which are required for file sharing) are granted by sale of a single copy for personal use. Other licenses can be negotiated. Libraries for example use a modified license. Book publishers have a license permitting them to print, distribute and sell.

If you really want to share files. Contact the copyright owner and get permission or contact your Congress Critters and change the law. Until then you can go on hoping that you won't be spending the thousands of dollars you have saved to pay the lawyer to try and convince the judge that you shouldn't be penalized for something as ordinary as breaking the law...after all everyone does it, so it is legal by consensus--right?